[HN Gopher] Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on po...
___________________________________________________________________
Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
Author : Kon-Peki
Score : 365 points
Date : 2023-06-16 16:24 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ilga.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (ilga.gov)
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| What? You mean we don't need a bunch of people dying because cops
| misinterpreted what they saw on crappy, jittery 1080p night time
| footage?
|
| Instant downvote. I guess _someone_ wants to see that on YouTube.
| etothepii wrote:
| Is this an audio transcription?
|
| What does: This Act may be referred to as the Drones as First
| Responders Act.
|
| mean? This level of non-English doesn't strike me as a great idea
| in an actual law.
| michaelmior wrote:
| Instead of referring to the bill as House Bill 3902, the common
| name that can be used is the "Drones as First Responders Act."
| This is fairly standard boilerplate.
| etothepii wrote:
| Ah! The carriage returns broke my internal parser.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Is this a new _restriction_ on existing practices, or legislation
| that enables more functionality with police drones as long as it
| doesn 't include weapons or facial recognition? I get an entirely
| different vibe from every other discussion on this legislation
| than from the headline of this post.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| As you can see from the text (signed by the governor today;
| effective immediately), this is a new restriction. All
| underlined text is newly added to the law. Text with a
| strikethrough is removed from the law.
|
| The law also adds many new data reporting obligations, and
| empowers the Attorney General to investigate (with teeth)
| violations.
| starttoaster wrote:
| Police departments in the US basically don't require
| legislation to add new functionality to their policing
| mechanisms, they require laws to tell them what they cannot do.
| So more the former than the latter. But it doesn't really
| matter with this for the average citizen, most likely. They'll
| only ever use the drones for big busts. Most cops just sit in
| traffic until they get bored and chase down random beater cars
| that were going 5 over the speed limit, or pulled slightly too
| far forward at a stop sign that had shrubs blocking the left
| and right view.
| RajT88 wrote:
| > Most cops just sit in traffic until they get bored and
| chase down random beater cars that were going 5 over the
| speed limit, or pulled slightly too far forward at a stop
| sign that had shrubs blocking the left and right view.
|
| That's also problematic!
| chasd00 wrote:
| not really, break the law get a ticket, that's how things
| are suppose to work. The problematic thing is the laws are
| rarely enforced.
| RajT88 wrote:
| > The problematic thing is the laws are rarely enforced.
|
| You're almost right. In the post I was replying to is a
| description on _who_ typically gets those laws enforced
| against them.
| [deleted]
| ERUIONKP wrote:
| [flagged]
| shipscode wrote:
| The title confused me a bit, Illinois isn't prohibiting weapon
| recognition on drones, it's prohibiting putting weapons on
| drones.
|
| Also, the act doesn't appear to have any legal consequences, so I
| wonder if it actually holds any teeth.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| If they did, then you could successfully sue them for an
| injunction. Further use would then be contempt of court, a
| separate crime. Further, any evidence derived from that would
| be inadmissible in any proceedings.
| DonaldPShimoda wrote:
| > The title confused me a bit, Illinois isn't prohibiting
| weapon recognition on drones, it's prohibiting putting weapons
| on drones.
|
| This is normal title style for a news headline and has been for
| a very long time; the comma here is short for "and".
| piperswe wrote:
| "weapons" should be missing the "s" to reduce ambiguity in
| that case. Right now it reads like (weapons) and (facial
| recognition). "weapons recognition" doesn't quite sound right
| to me.
| DonaldPShimoda wrote:
| > Right now it reads like (weapons) and (facial
| recognition).
|
| That's because that _is_ what it says. The parent comment
| 's confusion was due to both parsing the comma as a list
| separator instead of a conjunction as well as not
| recognizing the implication of the "s" at the end of
| "weapons".
| piperswe wrote:
| Oh. Ignore me then, I'm just misinterpreting everything.
| AHOHA wrote:
| They technically can record the video by the drone and then later
| do the face recognition offline just like any recorded video by
| personal cams. Also, face recognition on drones isn't the worse,
| what's the flight time, max 40min? Yeah that's barely a threat,
| are they also banning the same recognition on other cameras like
| the ones installed on the roads, urban areas, traffic lights that
| are working 247? Guess not, it's just a theater to create the
| illusion "we care about your privacy and security" or whatever.
| Ban police dogs, ban the concept of "shooting then asking", ban
| hiring the scum of the town and make them go through a very
| thorough and proper education, not a useless 2 years academy,
| among other things. But none of that will happen because it's
| deeply corrupt.
| samwillis wrote:
| As a Brit, watching the militarisation of the US police force is
| kinda scary. Hearing about successful push back and positive
| legislation is good.
|
| A quick bit of Googling, I can't find any evidence of weapons a
| being placed on police drones in Illinois, so this seems
| preemptive, which is good to see!
|
| (Our own police force has many of its own problems)
| Fernicia wrote:
| How do you balance this concern with the level of crime?
| Wouldn't be more excusable for a Johannesburg PD to be better
| equipped than Brighton?
|
| With that in mind, it doesn't seem right to paint the US with
| one brush when Chicago's murder rate is more than 5x higher
| than New York City's. For the case of small PDs having big
| budgets I agree it's wasted money, and maybe even damaging to
| the town.
|
| But in urban areas like Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago, it
| seems tone-deaf to focus on police violence when so many people
| are victimised by people the police could have locked up if
| they were better equipped. (Ignoring of course the weakness of
| courts to imprison violent offenders, which is also a huge
| issue in London.)
| wyager wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar.
| Last thing we need here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| wyager wrote:
| That was not a pro-American comment. I thought that would
| be self-evident, but perhaps not
| dang wrote:
| The problem is that it was flamebait, not whether it was
| pro-American or not.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Wait until you see how we've militarized the domestically-
| incorporated information systems that we export.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| I knew it was an issue when a rural town of _at best_ 2000
| people adjacent to where my wife grew up successfully purchased
| multiple Humvees for "riot control" through 1033 (a program
| instituted by a president from the equivalent of a blairite-ish
| labour party in our country, no less).
|
| More about that here:
| https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/12/police-departments-10...
| RajT88 wrote:
| Sort of like how Naperville has APC's, but also somehow is
| "The Safest Place in America". (That title is a fraud, btw,
| and the result of systemic non-prosecution, non-reporting,
| and reduction of felonies to lesser crimes. But they indeed
| don't have much of a gang violence problem - just major drug
| problems which go unaddressed.)
| reaperducer wrote:
| _systemic non-prosecution, non-reporting, and reduction of
| felonies to lesser crimes._
|
| This has been going on ever since the F.B.I. started
| requiring police departments to report their crime
| statistics in a uniform way.
|
| I remember one PD took advantage of a flaw in the forms
| that only allowed one category per crime. So if someone got
| robbed and killed, they'd mark it down as a robbery, not a
| homicide.
| RajT88 wrote:
| It happens at multiple levels in this case, in order to
| keep the area's super-low crime stats.
|
| I heard from a relative who's on a neighboring town's
| police force that the DA busts down first time felony
| offenders to misdemeanors nearly every time (this is at
| the county level). Except for the really bad stuff like
| murder, or selling drugs on a playground.
|
| I've heard anecdotally from friends that police just
| refuse to take reports of assault. This is domestic
| assault, or more "stranger danger" types of assaults
| (like late at night on the riverwalk). Both physical and
| sexual types of assault. This apparently doesn't count as
| "the really bad stuff" I described before.
|
| My sister knew a gal who got hit by a van while crossing
| the street, where there's a crosswalk and a yellow
| flashing light and a sign. Her leg was broken in a few
| places. When the police arrived, she received a ticket
| for jaywalking because she wasn't in the crosswalk. (A
| funny thing happens when you get hit by a van - you tend
| to move far away from where you were standing) That
| jaywalking ticket did not raise the crime stats like
| ticketing the driver would have. Bonus: It was
| potentially racially motivated, because the victim was
| black, and the cops have a reputation for harassing black
| people in town.
|
| Naperville is a fine place to raise your children if
| you're wealthy and white and your husband is not abusive.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Nitpick about purchased
|
| "It's a transfer, so that means that the agencies don't have
| to pay for this equipment. So because the government has
| already possessed it, paid for it, it's the Department of
| Defense's property."
|
| It seems technically it is still DoD property?
|
| But alltogether it is indeed worrysome. Here in germany we
| have the same trend, even though quite light in comparison.
|
| It is rare nowdays, that I see police without bulletproof
| wests and machine pistols are more and more common. It
| creates a very different impression ...
|
| Speaking of it: my car broke down once and I parked it on the
| side of a rural road (not in the way). It was weekend and I
| put a big note in it, saying it will be towed away very soon.
|
| Monday morning my wife with the baby were suprised by police
| on the door. And the first thing they see is the machine
| pistol and fighting gear.
|
| Surely totally necessary to get the same information, they
| could have gotten from the note in the car (that this very
| day it will be moved away). I seriously don't know what they
| were thinking. Probably nothing at all and war gear becomes
| just standard for engaging with potentially dangerous
| civilians, who park their car next to the road.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| Thank you, you're correct! Which makes it even worse.
|
| That story is horrifying.. it creates a scenario where the
| slightest misunderstand could escalate things to a point of
| no return.
| LeFantome wrote:
| Axon has openly floated the idea.
| FredPret wrote:
| What's scary is the number of CCTV cameras throughout Britain
| (not just London). I've never felt more surveilled than on a
| recent visit there.
| Zetice wrote:
| How does one "feel surveilled"?
| SpaghettiCthulu wrote:
| It's a feeling you get when you suspect (or in this case
| know) that you're being watched or recorded.
| Zetice wrote:
| Being watched != being recorded, and there is no sense a
| human has that can detect the gaze of another human.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| You've never felt like someone is watching you?
| Zetice wrote:
| I understand such a feeling is purely made up and not
| worth acknowledging, so I don't legitimize that thought.
| omniglottal wrote:
| Given the fact is legitimate, people legitimize the
| thought of it and self-censorship ensues.
| Zetice wrote:
| It's not legitimate? As I said, being watched != being
| recorded.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _As a Brit, watching the militarisation of the US police force
| is kinda scary._
|
| You should watch it from this side.
|
| Even people who aren't minorities and have never done anything
| wrong in their lives are starting to distrust and shy away from
| the police.
|
| It's one reason that so many (most?) police departments are
| understaffed.
| jessfyi wrote:
| After law enforcement successfully jury-rigged a bomb defusal
| robot with explosives to kill a cornered suspect in Dallas in
| 2016 [0][1] (with little to no pushback at the time) vendors
| and departments around the country have been pushing to
| formally adopt the tactic ever since. The first article noted
| (according to national head of their union) that SWAT teams
| around the country considered it prior to that incident. SFPD
| initially getting approval to do it brought national attention
| [2] to the practice, but unfortunately we're going to need a
| federal bill to stop its spread.
|
| [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2016/07/08/485262777... [1]
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
| [2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/san-francisco-
| decide...
| km3r wrote:
| Am I the only one that is OK with CCTV + facial recognition?
| Seems like a great way to tackle crime without having to involve
| potentially deadly encounters with police. Ya there are ways it
| could be abused, but I assume I have no privacy (as does the law)
| when I am in a public space. A lot cheaper than cops too. Put
| laws and systems in place to keep the data secure and require
| warrants to access the data.
|
| (No lethal weapons on drones please though, although I could see
| a case for riot control drones, not sure where you would draw the
| line on what is a weapon.)
| menus wrote:
| Wrongfully Accused by an Algorithm - New York Times
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recogni...
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Not just crime. It's a good way to tackle whistleblowers and
| investigative reporters. It's a good way to tackle peaceful
| protesters. It's even a good way to tackle undesirables and
| fugitives.
|
| Superhuman police powers (which is what pervasive surveillance
| is), sound great when the cops are worried about retrieving
| your stolen car or bicycle. But they become nightmares quickly
| when the police are more concerned with crimes the public
| doesn't care about or think are crimes.
|
| And the cops have been like that for decades. We should be
| downgrading their abilities, not upgrading them. I don't think
| it's completely out of the question that they only be allowed
| single-shot handguns where they must pull the brass with their
| own fingernails and reload before firing again. Honestly, there
| shouldn't be any cameras other than those on their bodies and
| in their cars used to collect evidence for trial. I'm on the
| fence on whether they should be allowed much electronic
| technology beyond that (and maybe radios).
| igorstellar wrote:
| It sounds completely surreal to have cameras and face id
| everywhere, but this is already done by our phones (face
| recognition) and GPS tracking, full surveillance of any
| messaging activity (with rare exceptions) for no good reason
| other than selling ads. Having less gun violence and deadly
| police interactions can actually use this technology for
| something better than just ads served by corporations (and also
| sell this data to anyone who pays). We should be careful about
| who can access these systems though.
| retrac wrote:
| > but I assume I have no privacy (as does the law) when I am in
| a public space.
|
| I think we may need to slightly retweak our concept of public
| and private. There are very few truly private spaces, from the
| perspective of an entity that can see every public space
| simultaneously.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It's not something you get instead of cops, when technology is
| developed for policing it's always always in addition. So it's
| not cops vs facial rec it's cops _with_ facial rec.
|
| American police have never been given a power that they have
| not chosen to abuse for personal or political reasons, and used
| against dissidents and the dispossessed. The abuses aren't
| theoretical they are inevitable and at huge scale.
|
| > Put laws and systems in place to keep the data secure and
| require warrants to access the data.
|
| When? Who writes warrants? Who enforces these rules and
| punishes transgressions of them? None of these would be actual
| practical restrictions, and they don't exist anyway. If you
| give them access to it _they have access to it_ your only
| chance to influence that was before you gave it to them.
| Zetice wrote:
| I agree with the idea that American police abuse their
| resources, and would abuse this resource if given the chance,
| and I think you mentioning it here is a great lesson for me
| and everyone else to remind us of the current situation for
| police.
|
| Where I fall short however is the resignation that this is
| how things must be, or that we'll forever be unable to change
| these things. If we can get this police abuse under control,
| _then_ the idea of using technology to help discover bad
| actors seems like a sound one to me.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| The punishments we dole out for committing crimes are
| disproportionately large at least in part to improve their
| deterrent effect given that many people who commit crimes
| may get away with them. If we can suddenly catch every
| single person who commits a crime, then the punishments
| should become less severe.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| People need to be able to operate outside the constant
| surveillance of the state. Our society is not built for 100%
| compliance, and that's where we go if we have constant
| tracking.
|
| For one, many laws are enforced with discretion and rightly so.
| Second, people need to coordinate action against their
| government from time to time.
|
| No, phone data and localized CCTV are not equivalent.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Yeah! Why would we be frightened of constant surveillance if we
| have nothing to hide?
|
| It's not as if states are writing any laws that criminalize
| women's healthcare, gender identity, or sexuality. And it's not
| as if law enforcement would ever misuse access to carry out
| personal vendetta. And it's not as if laws are only being
| enforced and prosecuted depending on who you are or what you
| believe.
|
| So let's get going and put all criminals in jail and a bunch of
| protesters as well.
| remyp wrote:
| As an Illinois resident, voter, and taxpayer, I'm pleased by
| this. I don't think I've never been _happy_ with Illinois
| politicians, but this current set is meaningfully productive
| enough for me to consider plausible the idea of being happy with
| my government.
| monksy wrote:
| The state reps seem to be better.
|
| But our federal senators are pretty awful tankies. (Durban and
| Duckworth.. they'll full on send you a tone death letter about
| why encryption is awful after you send them your concerns)
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| I don't like tankies, but what about that makes them a tankie
| rather than merely authoritarian?
| monksy wrote:
| Authoritarian. I think I may have had a bad understanding
| of what a tankie is.
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| The term originally arose to refer to Communist party
| members of Western countries who supported the
| suppression of the Hungarian Uprising, and later the
| Prague Spring and Tienanmen square, through tanks and
| military force.
|
| Today it refers to Western communists who are not only
| marxists, but who defend/deny/celebrate atrocities
| committed by communist states, particularly the use of
| the military (incl. tanks) to slaughter protestors.
|
| Generally people who support those states and leaders but
| conveniently gloss over the crimes against humanity are
| also referred to as tankies, even if they don't
| explicitly support the acts. In a more modern context, it
| includes lefties who support Russia's invasion of
| Ukraine.
|
| So, while all tankies are authoritarians, not all
| authoritarians are tankies. And while all tankies are
| authoritarian communists, not all authoritarian
| communists are tankies - though I'd argue that supporting
| that kind of system while simultaneously recognising that
| all the times it's happened before it went awfully is not
| a particularly coherent worldview either.
| JustFigItOut wrote:
| I'm curious how they qualify as tankies? Neither of them are
| even socialist let alone some kind of authoritarian
| communist.
| monksy wrote:
| I mentioned in another comment, I think I may have been
| incorrect in the usage of tankie. I meant authoritarian.
|
| I've been active in contacting my senators for the bills
| that came up that were a threat to privacy and destroying
| encryption for the last few years. KOSA, BAN TICKTOCK, EARN
| IT, etc. Addition to the encoarching collection of
| biometric data of citizens by the federal government and
| private entities.
|
| I've got nothing but form letters quickly responded that
| "it's for the kids" in those cases. No acceptance that
| they'll collect and consider the feedback, just tone death
| emails saying "well EARN IT is going to protect the kids
| [ignore that lindsay graham wants to wack it to your
| personal photos and call it scanning]".
|
| I've had a friend with an issue getting her husband getting
| an ESTA for family travel to the US and had some concerning
| interviewing agents. I tried reaching out for her...
| nothing.
|
| Duckworth and Durbin are good D politicans, as in they tow
| the party line. As far as representation of IL needs and
| supporting rights ... they don't care.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| hisnameishank wrote:
| Illinois also just banned the practice of banning books :)
| hinkley wrote:
| The Illinois education board always had a soft spot for
| banned books. I was legally required to read two of them for
| my schools to retain accreditation. But we actually read 3
| 1/2.
| eksx wrote:
| I have to say that definitely makes me happy!
| RajT88 wrote:
| >I don't think I've never been _happy_ with Illinois
| politicians
|
| Occasionally, I'm happy with the amount of jail time they get.
| hinkley wrote:
| A particular treat for residents of Illinois and New York.
| faitswulff wrote:
| It's a treasured Illinois tradition
| brian_herman wrote:
| This and the privacy laws that illinois has like the Personal
| Information Protection act make me happy too.
| https://www.varonis.com/blog/illinois-privacy-law
| jollyllama wrote:
| The facial recognition isn't on the drone, the cop just uploads
| the footage to a tagging service *trollface*
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| I got a $400 settlement from Facebook when they did facial
| recognition in violation of a similar law. IANAL but if / when
| they try it I will probably get another settlement.
| bs7280 wrote:
| Illinois has very strong anti facial recognition / biometric
| law. Theres been a lot of class action lawsuits recently. I got
| like $300 from the facebook settlement alone.
|
| So this loophole wouldn't work either fortunately
| stonedge wrote:
| This is true, but that law (BIPA) applies to private
| entities. i.e., government orgs and contractors are exempt.
| Regardless, this new legislation is good. I would like to see
| the complete inclusion of government organizations into
| needing to acquire consent.
|
| https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&C.
| ..
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The law covers both scenarios, as shown in the linked text:
|
| > A law enforcement agency operating a drone under this Act is
| prohibited from using, during a flight, onboard facial
| recognition software that works in conjunction with the drone.
| A law enforcement agency operating a drone under this Act is
| prohibited from using any information gathered by a drone with
| any facial recognition software
| sokoloff wrote:
| That depends on the grouping of clauses.
|
| Grouped as (prohibited from using any information gathered by
| a drone) (with any facial recognition software), you might be
| right.
|
| Grouped as (prohibited from using any information gathered by
| a (drone with any facial recognition software)), I don't
| think you're right. Personally, I would naturally group the
| clauses in this way and conclude that off-drone facial
| recognition was not effectively barred by this statute but
| onboard facial recognition was.
| activiation wrote:
| It should not be limited to police... All government agencies
| should be subject to the same restrictions... Sheriff, FBI, USPS,
| IRS, etc...
| djha-skin wrote:
| [flagged]
| collegeburner wrote:
| i am anti the current chicago status quo and agree the policies
| are dumb. but all this does is prohibit surveillance and
| weapons via drone. which i both support.
|
| the answer is some amount of improved traditional policing
| (necessary evil) and arming all the non-gang people to the
| teeth bc the gang ones are already armed
| mb7733 wrote:
| The police can still carry guns. Their drones cannot.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Literally, none of this is true.
| mcbutterbunz wrote:
| > Now they can't carry weapons.
|
| Is this accurate? I haven't read the full text of the law but I
| thought it meant no weaponized drones.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I thought it meant no weaponized drones.
|
| That is correct. It says this:
|
| " Sec. 18. Use of weapons. A law enforcement agency operating
| a drone under this Act is prohibited from equipping or using
| on a drone any firearm, weaponized laser, kinetic impact
| projectile, chemical agent or irritant, or any other lethal
| or non-lethal weapon."
| chasd00 wrote:
| someone was probably floating the idea of dropping tear gas
| down a chimney using a drone and they wanted to nip it in
| the bud.
| plagiarist wrote:
| I suppose it is difficult to read the actual facts in the
| middle of typing out a knee-jerk reaction.
| beepbopboopp wrote:
| You should go look at the ratio between administrative costs
| and actual beat cop salaries. The rising cost of college and
| the rising cost of law enforcement/defense suffers from a
| similar decay of middle men leaches just creating fees.
|
| Also as a note, theres not a lot of correlation between an
| increase and violence and reduced weapons policy, its almost
| driven by some secondary macro trend.
| selectodude wrote:
| The CPD has one of the lowest admin:beat cop ratios in the
| country. It's like 12:1. They're already about as lean as it
| gets.
| mulmen wrote:
| 12 admin to one cop doesn't seem lean to me.
| hermitdev wrote:
| I think the GP meant lean on beat cops, heavy on admin.
| selectodude wrote:
| No, I just flipped the numbers. 12 sworn officers for
| ever admin.
| [deleted]
| mulmen wrote:
| While bringing attention to the challenges of policing may be
| important armed drones are not the hill to die on. Cops may
| need support from prosecutors and they may need better
| equipment to deal with gangs, but they never need armed drones.
| hinkley wrote:
| Second City has been busy this month.
|
| What's goin on there?
| TheCaptain4815 wrote:
| [flagged]
| cma wrote:
| If there is a bomb that can be dismantled by a remote operated
| drone with a "weapon" on it, or an armed perpetrator situation,
| it is kind of sadistic to make an officer go in in person
| instead. I can see limiting autonomous ones though.
| mulmen wrote:
| This law only applies to flying drones. The law doesn't require
| an officer to do anything in person. It's not sadistic. Let's
| tone down the rhetoric.
|
| Bomb disposal is fine by me, there's plenty of time to get that
| right. Armed perpetrators should be dealt with by actual human
| officers, hopefully specialty trained SWAT. I don't trust a
| webcam to differentiate between a hostage and a bad guy.
| [deleted]
| abeppu wrote:
| Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be
| absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from
| the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions.
|
| Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to
| hear to push in the opposite direction:
|
| - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a
| world where only the criminals have armed drones.
|
| - Sometimes law enforcement must be able to use deadly force.
| Isn't it better if in those situations, officers aren't also
| putting their lives at risk?
|
| - Currently, when law enforcement uses deadly force, one of the
| strongest defenses is that in the moment, an officer felt that
| their own life was at risk. A drone operator has no such fear and
| therefore no bias towards using weapons prematurely.
| karaterobot wrote:
| The argument against it being federal is that such a bill would
| likely be the result of a lot more compromises, chipped away at
| by a lot more parties. Which makes sense, as it would have a
| lot more stakeholders, and a lot more at stake.
|
| The feds also have a stronger tendency to make bigger, dumber,
| more invasive enforcement mechanisms that end up creating new
| and unforeseen problems.
| mulmen wrote:
| I get the argument for federal laws but honestly I think it is
| misguided to want state laws promoted to a national level
| immediately. This is how law in the US evolves. The patchwork
| is a feature. A federal government with the agility to
| implement this law at a national level would have far too much
| power. The system is working.
| craigmcnamara wrote:
| We should promote this patch to production ASAP
| mulmen wrote:
| Works on my machine. Or is that in my neighborhood?
| ryandrake wrote:
| I agree. It's helpful to remember: for every law you _like_
| and want promoted to the federal level, there 's another law
| you probably don't like that someone else thinks would be
| great to promote to the federal level. Although moving states
| to flee terrible laws is a burden, it's not as much of a
| burden as fleeing your entire country. Laws should be as
| local as practically possible.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| This is an argument of process over substance. Good laws
| should be applied as widely as possible. Bad laws should be
| as local as possible, preferably applied nowhere at all.
| bumby wrote:
| > _Good laws should be applied as widely as possible._
|
| Literally nobody except criminals would disagree with
| this. That's what makes is of limited value in a
| discussion like this. It's like saying "Good speech
| should be disseminated everywhere." Yes. We already
| agree, to the point where the argument is that
| protections for good speech aren't really needed.
|
| The difficulty is getting a handle on what is a "good
| law". This is difficult, in part, because we can't always
| understand the effects down the causal chain. We also
| can't always get people to agree on the definition. Is a
| "good law" one that prioritizes safety over personal
| freedom or is it the other way around? I dunno, but this
| is even harder in a democracy, where everyone
| (theoretically, at least) has a voice.
| maxerickson wrote:
| The lack of agreement on 'practical' or 'good' is what
| makes the point about local being better for good,
| practical laws tedious.
| Clubber wrote:
| >Good laws should be applied as widely as possible.
|
| Good for whom? Supermajority, sure. Anything less should
| be at the state and local level.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| You're back into process again. Laws do not have metadata
| attached to them, their goodness is a function of the
| observer.
|
| You think a law is good if you think it's good. You
| preference is then for it to be applied as widely as
| possible. Maybe other people disagree, and so should want
| it applied nowhere. Now you get to fight with them, using
| whatever power you have and are willing to use. Whoever
| has the most power to bring to the fight will win it.
| banana_feather wrote:
| > Laws should be as local as practically possible.
|
| You guys are every lawyer's dream. Yes, please, continue
| believing you're following some great American tradition of
| strong local government by submitting to the whims of your
| local Boss Tweed and the five judges in your county, I play
| golf with them once a month. Oh, you have a legal problem
| and need to navigate the rats nest of weird local laws?
| Great, you can choose from one of three tax attorneys that
| know the local tax regime as it applies to your business. I
| play golf with them too, and (coincidentally) we all bill
| $1,100 an hour.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| I agree. When can we have one-world government where
| unreachable aloof bureaucrats tell others how to live
| from across an ocean?
|
| Universal laws with no nuance or adjustments for local
| conditions are just so awesome I am trembling in
| anticipation.
|
| If we're lucky, they might even outlaw these evil lawyers
| that you lampoon so effortlessly.
| ehvatum wrote:
| [flagged]
| some_random wrote:
| You guys are every esthetician's dream. Yes, please
| continue believing you're following some great skincare
| tradition by submitting to the whims of your local
| sephora and the five skincare instagram influencers in
| your local county, I play volleyball with them once a
| month. Oh, you want a tattoo and need help to navigate
| the lawyers nest of weird local tattoo parlors? Great,
| you can choose from one of three instagram tattoo artists
| that know the local tattoo regime as it applies to your
| section of skin. I play volleyball with them too, and
| (coincidentally) we all bill $110 an hour.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| You guys are every fast food worker's dream. Yes, please
| continue believing you're following some great culinary
| tradition by submitting to the whims of your local drive-
| thru and the five foodie Instagram influencers in your
| local county, I play dodgeball with them once a month.
| Oh, you want a custom T-shirt and need help to navigate
| the crafters' maze of local thrift stores? Great, you can
| choose from one of three Instagram crafters that know the
| local thrifting scene as it applies to your fashion
| statement. I play dodgeball with them too, and
| (coincidentally) we all make $15 an hour.
| lurker616 wrote:
| So I guess reddit is still closed.
| xigency wrote:
| Yes. And sadly even before the blackout it's lost a lot
| of charm from the early days. I see people hating on pun
| threads and threads like above on Reddit and it makes me
| nostalgic and sad. Being a geek isn't cool there anymore.
| abeppu wrote:
| This is being downvoted I guess for its tone, but I think
| the point is a good one: Laws that apply over a large
| jurisdiction are easier and cheaper to comply with. Maybe
| a good example of this is laws surrounding alcohol; I
| think it's kind of crazy that a winery in CA trying to
| ship an order back to a tourist's home has to understand
| and comply with local and municipal laws on the other
| side of the country and knowing which counties are dry
| and where their specific boundaries are ... which creates
| real cost and complexity that each of those businesses
| contends with, and higher prices get passed on to all
| consumers.
|
| When companies decide the complexity is too high, they
| sometimes just have to target the most stringent law that
| they can reasonably cover, e.g. car companies meeting CA
| emission standards can make CA the defacto national
| standard. A buyer in Texas is presumably paying a higher
| price for a car designed to meet a law in another state.
| It would be more democratic if there was just a national
| standard.
| abeppu wrote:
| A kamikaze drone can have a variable blast radius that can
| kill a vehicle's driver but not passengers. That sounds
| extremely local.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-
| we...
| gus_massa wrote:
| In the video at 1:10 there are a lot of glass shards in
| the passenger seat. I'll call bullshit until it's tested
| in Mythbusters with Buster as the passenger.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| As someone who owns the model of truck pictured in the
| video, there is no possible way that you could kill the
| driver without risking death to the passenger. Those
| trucks are TINY.
|
| That video is pure propaganda, but I would support the
| CEO if he wanted to sit in the passenger seat and try and
| take out a dummy next to him.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| Doesn't this kind of depend on the law? Do you really think
| "guns and and facial recognition on drones" is the kind of
| thing we have to do experiments on? I kind of get where
| you're coming from in the sense that it is scary for so much
| power over so many people to be concentrated in such a small
| place, but, on the other hand, when the case is simple or the
| moral calculus is clear enough, I think we ought not feel a
| strong compunction against action at a federal level.
| mulmen wrote:
| No, it doesn't depend on the law. I think all laws need
| experimentation regardless of the subject matter because no
| law is perfect. I also think a federal government that can
| quickly enact laws is far too powerful an entity to exist
| in a country of 330,000,000 people. While some "good" laws
| might get enacted sooner "bad" laws will as well. Remember
| we are a country guilty of genocide.
|
| As an exercise try writing down the name of all the
| politicians you can off the top of your head. Then consider
| if you like and agree with them or not. Then ask yourself
| if you _really_ want an agile federal government.
|
| Thinking only the laws you like will make it to a federal
| law free of unintended side effect is naive fantasy at
| best. The laboratory of democracy is working. Please, lobby
| your representatives, get involved, but don't confuse lack
| of federal law for malfunction.
| abeppu wrote:
| I don't think anyone would accuse our federal government
| of being "agile" or able to "quickly enact laws". And I
| agree that in almost all things getting the right law is
| more important than getting a law quickly.
|
| However, your insistence that "it doesn't depend on the
| law" makes me view your whole stance more critically; the
| answer in complex areas is very rarely "it doesn't
| depend". There's a bunch of domains where stuff just
| happens across state lines so frequently that a patchwork
| would only create confusion. It would be really
| disruptive if NY made it illegal to drive on gas you
| bought in NJ b/c NY officials hadn't specifically tested
| it to confirm that all additives were acceptable; it's
| easier if we just have federal standards.
| abeppu wrote:
| In general, I understand and am sympathetic to the idea of
| the states as being laboratories for democracy, etc.
|
| However, in this case:
|
| - The US federal government already has and has used drones
| as weapons overseas, including to kill US citizens. This now
| includes smaller/cheaper drones.
|
| - The US federal government has materially supported the
| militarization of police forces, including by giving them
| military equipment.
|
| - Federal law enforcement agencies operate everywhere in the
| country, and IIUC their behavior isn't limited by those state
| laws (e.g. the state of CA can't pass a law that removes the
| CBP "100-mile border zone" and restricts them to only
| operating at borders and ports), and IIUC the FBI already
| flies surveillance flights (though the facial recognition
| prohibition likely doesn't apply here).
| abeppu wrote:
| To be clear, I _also_ would strongly prefer the facial
| recognition prohibition be national (and also apply to non-
| drone-based cameras that police have access to). But clearly
| literal killer drones are worse than mere spy drones.
| nradov wrote:
| We already have a federal bill that prohibits dangerous weapons
| on drones. It is the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. As far as
| I can tell the law doesn't have any exceptions for civilian law
| enforcement.
|
| https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/drones-and-weapons-dangerous-mi...
| glitchc wrote:
| A federal law can only apply to FBI, National Guard, Coast
| Guard and other federally managed law enforcement bodies. It
| cannot apply to the various state and county police
| authorities. Governance of those is a right explicitly granted
| to each state and county, and the states/counties will fight
| tooth and nail to retain it.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Usually what happens is the feds don't legislate it directly
| but tie it to acceptance of federal funding.
| karaterobot wrote:
| They'd just use federal funding as leverage. "If you want
| these federal dollars, you'll abide by the following..." If
| the 10th amendment went to war with the Spending Power
| clause, I know who I'd put money on!
| abeppu wrote:
| 65% of the US population is within the 100-mile border zone
| in which CBP operates -- I think they shouldn't have drones
| with facial recognition abilities.
|
| In 2015 there was a bunch of press around the FBI running
| surveillance flights recording cities in the US. Recent
| reporting suggests that the program has continued (using the
| same shell companies and names). This would be even harder
| for citizens to find out about if they were using smaller
| drones).
|
| If federal agencies were prohibited from using drones to
| surveil citizens en masse, and prohibited from arming drones,
| I think we'd all benefit. If we also had a federal
| prohibiting 1033 transfers of military drones with arms or
| facial recognition, I would also consider that to be a win.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-w.
| ..
|
| https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-
| justic...
| MereInterest wrote:
| That doesn't quite make sense to me. A federal policy or a
| federal executive order only applying to federally-managed
| bodies, I could understand. But federal _laws_ outweigh state
| and local laws.
| [deleted]
| glitchc wrote:
| This power stems from the Tenth Amendment, which states
| that any power not delegated to the Federal government
| becomes the purview of the State.
|
| Given that the state has a number of laws, it must operate
| its own police force to enforce those laws. Therefore,
| since a state is required to operate said police force,
| governance of that force falls under the purview of the
| state and cannot be delegated to an external authority. If
| that were possible, the federal government could take
| control of a state police force to enforce laws contrary to
| the state's own laws.
|
| It sounds circuitous, but the meaning is clear: The state
| has to be able to govern and control its own police force
| if it wants to enforce its own laws.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_c
| o...
| brewdad wrote:
| You have the causality wrong. The state and local police
| forces are necessary to enforce local laws _because_
| there are many things are are not illegal at the federal
| level. They simply aren 't addressed at all.
|
| There also may be consistency in the legality but not the
| punishment. As an example, when I was in college the max
| penalty for getting caught with a single marijuana joint
| ranged anywhere from a $5 fine to a year in prison
| depending on whether you were caught by a city cop,
| campus police, county sheriff, or state police officer. I
| suppose it would have been possible to end up in federal
| prison if you somehow pissed off the wrong FBI agent.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Federal laws absolutely apply to local government and their
| agencies.
|
| The death penalty was banned in 1972 on a federal ruling of a
| local law (Georgia), as a consequence, all death sentences,
| federal and state, were commuted to life.
|
| There are a TON of federal laws that apply to local law
| enforcement. At this moment there are several local police
| departments that are being actively monitored and controlled
| by the DOJ due to unconstitutional activity.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Ironically, they didn't commute those sentences as a result
| of the death penalty but due to the (lack of) sentencing
| guidelines being against the 8th amendment.
|
| The states rewrote their laws and went right back to
| sentencing people to death.
| xtreme wrote:
| What are good counters to these arguments?
| 542354234235 wrote:
| I'll add to abeppu's arguments.
|
| > If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a
| world where only the criminals have armed drones.
|
| If criminals have guns, police should have body armor and
| maybe also guns. If criminals have automatic guns, police
| should not have automatic guns because 99% of their job has
| no connection to those encounters and they are a huge force
| that interacts with the public constantly, so treating it at
| an occupying force is a terrible idea. Armed drones don't
| fight each other. Having armed drones doesn't protect police,
| or anyone, from armed drones that criminals may or may not
| have.
|
| > Sometimes law enforcement must be able to use deadly force.
| Isn't it better if in those situations, officers aren't also
| putting their lives at risk?
|
| Taking the life of a fellow citizen is a huge amount of power
| given by the government. If the government can take citizen's
| lives with no risk and no locality, there can be no
| accountability. Real people going out and enforcing the law
| is a check, as imperfect as it is, on what laws and how far
| the government can go. If a warehouse of drone operators
| outside of DC can open fire on protestors in Albuquerque,
| there is no accountability.
|
| > Currently, when law enforcement uses deadly force, one of
| the strongest defenses is that in the moment, an officer felt
| that their own life was at risk. A drone operator has no such
| fear and therefore no bias towards using weapons prematurely.
|
| DOJ investigations show again and again that shootings are
| the result of systemic issues within the police force. Just
| as one example, the Clevand PD was investigated after the
| Tamir Rice murder and found a pattern of excessive force,
| substandard training, and unconstitutional practices. From
| the report. "The employment of poor and dangerous tactics
| that place officers in situations where avoidable force
| becomes inevitable and places officers and civilians at
| unnecessary risk...We found that CDP officers too often use
| unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the
| Constitution. Supervisors tolerate this behavior and, in some
| cases, endorse it. Officers report that they receive little
| supervision, guidance, and support from the Division,
| essentially leaving them to determine for themselves how to
| perform their difficult and dangerous jobs." The DOJ
| specifically states that Cleveland PD use excessive force,
| including deadly force, at a "significant rate" and that
| excessive and deadly force was a pattern, and not isolated
| incidences. [1]
|
| Making it that much easier for police to use "unnecessary and
| unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution" is not
| going to make things safer for anyone.
|
| [1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-
| releas...
| petsfed wrote:
| To that end, its not that, in a perfect world, law
| enforcement shouldn't _ever_ have any of these tools, just
| that our entire justice system is not set up to adequately
| police the police.
|
| I'd be in favor of immediately banning armed drones, and
| immediately banning facial recognition from drone
| surveillance. At a national level. Don't even give it to
| federal police forces. Then let the congress come up with a
| sensible path for qualifying their use. Drones over a
| sporting event, looking for faces of any known terrorists
| is a non-starter. Drones over a specific sporting event,
| looking for a particular suspect, because the officers were
| able to get a warrant for their use during that event? Ok,
| sure, if we could find a constitutional path to get there.
|
| Likewise, I have no particular objection to e.g. armed
| robots, if the police who use it can show that there was no
| other way to resolve that situation. But there can be no
| qualified immunity if you lose that case. Whoever signs off
| on the robot goes to jail for murder if a jury can be
| convinced there were other realistic options.
|
| Basically, a lot of issues with police abuse of power, to
| my mind, come down to a total absence of accountability.
| The tools are not, of themselves, dangerous. Its just that
| we keep putting them in the hands of people who will never
| use them responsibly. To be clear, it may well be the case
| that no people exist who can use them responsibly, but the
| narrative around removing the tools needs to center on the
| accountability question, not the "tools are scary" angle.
| [deleted]
| abeppu wrote:
| I'll bite:
|
| The response to "then only criminals will have armed drones"
| is: Ok, let's give all the cops a lot of drugs and child
| porn, because it would be bad if only criminals had that
| stuff, and maybe we can give them anthrax and components for
| a dirty bomb, because it would be bad if only terrorists had
| those. Or maybe, that's a broken line of reasoning and law
| enforcement isn't a war in which enemies must be met with
| equal means.
|
| The answer to "sometimes police have to use deadly force;
| isn't it better if their lives aren't at stake is": We live
| in a world where kids having fun on the internet will have
| other people 'swatted'. This is only possible because police
| are willing to arm themselves and suddenly and forcefully
| enter a situation where they have _no credible information_
| about any kind of threat. Until they demonstrate some
| capacity to consistently identify whether a situation
| requires deadly force, it's irresponsible to give them more
| of it.
|
| The response to the "police who use deadly force
| inappropriately may have felt their life was at risk" is ...
| all the videos of police killings where an unarmed person is
| running away, an unarmed person is already effectively
| restrained, etc etc. Police use deadly force even when there
| is clearly no threat. Making police safer isn't the solution;
| the rest of us need to be safe from the police.
| [deleted]
| reaperducer wrote:
| _What are good counters to these arguments?_
|
| Mostly it comes down to the companies that make these things
| have to "maximize shareholder value." Who cares if people get
| killed?
|
| It's good to see Illinois get ahead of this, considering that
| politicians in Illinois keep getting caught taking bribes
| from these policing equipment companies that peddle gadgets
| like red light cameras.
|
| Just yesterday it was revealed that the newly elected mayor
| of Chicago authorized the extension of the ShotSpotter
| contract another ten years: One of the very things he
| promised to kill when he was campaigning.
|
| It's all been "Oops! Is that my signature!? I didn't know
| that other people have the ability to click a button and sign
| my name to multi-million dollar contracts. Oh, well, maybe
| next decade!"
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| I don't see how that addresses any of the three points in
| the root comment.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Probably won't happen, but I bet they'll pass something like
| that for civilian drones
| dpratt wrote:
| There is no way this would ever even pass initial consideration
| at the Federal level, in that there is no incentive for the
| Federal government to limit the weaponry available to it's law
| enforcement apparatus. They would see such a law as containing
| no upside for the government itself, and therefore it will be,
| at best, laughed out of committee and more likely any
| Congressman or Senator who proposes it will mysteriously find
| that a lot of his or her donors are suddenly turning on him.
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| >> Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It
| would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated
| death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local
| restrictions.
|
| >> - Sometimes law enforcement must be able to use deadly
| force. Isn't it better if in those situations, officers aren't
| also putting their lives at risk?
|
| What about drones that can be used to deploy non-lethal
| weapons?
|
| For example, if police need to employ riot control gas
| (https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/riotcontrol/factsheet.asp) to
| disperse a violent mob, a drone could fly over the mob and drop
| the gas.
|
| Should that be permitted?
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Nope, "violent mobs" are something that if it exists and rich
| enough modern democratic societies (and others) that is
| effect of some cause that needs immediate fixing, even
| beating them just down is maybe too much - I know I'm a bit
| too idealistic and romantic (:
|
| But no, please let us not starts with robots/machines
| fighting our own society but fix it, drones in warfare are
| already enough of an ethical problem..
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| >> Nope, "violent mobs" are something that if it exists and
| rich enough modern democratic societies (and others) that
| is effect of some cause that needs immediate fixing, even
| beating them just down is maybe too much - I know I'm a bit
| too idealistic and romantic (:
|
| So a devil's advocate question then:
|
| If a riot control gas-equipped drone was available at
| Washington DC on Jan. 6, 2021, should it have been used?
|
| By what criteria do you define "some cause that needs
| immediate fixing"?
|
| Where does one draw the line between "valid civil unrest" /
| "protest" and "a violent mob"?
|
| >> let us not starts with robots/machines fighting our own
| society
|
| Should human police officers be used then?
|
| Or should the "protesters" / mob be allowed to roam freely?
| godelski wrote:
| I think for the vast majority of cases I agree. If there
| are public riots, the system fucked up. This doesn't mean
| that the public riots are directed at the appropriate
| solution or have correctly identified the underlying issue,
| it just means that something broke and that thing is
| serious. Almost nothing is going to lead to a public riot
| overnight. It is because the problem was left unsolved and
| the pressure built.
|
| I'm perfectly okay if there are severe consequences for
| authorities who do not attempt to solve problems that cause
| pressure to build. If you play with a pipe bomb, you gotta
| be careful and attentive.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| I assume you mean to apply this theory equally to more than
| just the leftists?
| lettergram wrote:
| First, I hate Illinois. That said, Illinois is one of the few
| states that have solid protections against 3rd party recordings
| (both parties have to consent) and tries to provide some
| protections around biometrics.
|
| Though... part of me thinks it's about corrupt politicians not
| wanting to be caught themselves haha. I frankly left the state
| because it's so corrupt. The pension fund is missing so much
| money (combined with state debt) that each family would have to
| pay >$100k to offset the current deficit. PLUS the population is
| dropping. That doesn't include other corruption, like the co-
| sponsor of the marijuana legalization bill selling licenses to
| grow. She was caught and all they did was remove her as a
| sponsor, that's it. Nothing else.
|
| The one time I saw a glimmer of hope was when everyone voted down
| an amendment to change the income tax. Left & right politically
| all agree it's so corrupt and want none of it haha. It's what
| unifies in the population of the state.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| The fact they need a law to stop the police using UCAVs against
| civilians is terrifying.
| nemo44x wrote:
| You have to think about the incentives at play. Imagine you're
| a police chief or some kind of similar decision maker in a
| government organization. You have certain metrics you need to
| hit as dictated by elected politicians and non-elected
| supervisors, etc. You have a "job to do" and you're being
| measured by the outcomes you produce. Your career and wellbeing
| depends on this.
|
| So what do you expect them to do? They absolutely need a law
| that says they can't use a certain technique/technology/etc
| because they'd be deemed incompetent for _not_ using them if
| they were missing their metrics. So you use them unless you
| have a law that says you can 't. Then you have an out.
|
| It's not like these are evil people. They want the same things
| you do in the end. But they have a specific job to do with
| goals to pursue and what do you expect them to do?
|
| Incentives drive behavior.
| tinyhouse wrote:
| Instead of fixing issues like bias with facial recognition, they
| prefer to ban it instead. And Illinois of all places, where the
| crime is out of control. Who will suffer the most? you guess it
| right, those who they are trying to protect... Go figure.
| xp84 wrote:
| I don't think bias is the main problem with FR. I think the
| problem is more of the police performing mass FR. Although
| perfect FR by a (fictional) benevolent police force could allow
| much easier capture of all criminals, I think most Americans
| are more afraid of an all-powerful police force made possible
| by FR than they are of the status quo that many criminals go
| uncaught for a long time (and possibly forever). And I think
| that the militaristic behavior of cops and police departments
| have earned that.
|
| The (hopefully) hyperbolic version of this fear is: Say you
| were wanted for a crime, and nobody believed you (or perhaps
| you're guilty but it's a BS law). If it's perfectly legal for
| them to do so, maybe the cops will just fly a killdrone over
| places you're known to frequent and shoot you on sight, and say
| 'Gee, sorry if you were offended, but (Name) was a dangerous
| criminal, wanted for terrorism and refused to turn himself in,
| we had no choice.'
| dogsgobork wrote:
| >Illinois of all places, where the crime is out of control
|
| Is it? From what I've found Illinois is fairly middle of the
| pack vs other states.
| Pxtl wrote:
| My only concern here is that police in North America already have
| a mobile units that can pursue and attack people on command with
| ostensibly less-than-lethal power which have occasionally killed
| people by accident.
|
| They're called _dogs_.
|
| I'm having trouble seeing a drone with a taser as worse.
| testplzignore wrote:
| > This Act does not prohibit the use of a drone by a law
| enforcement agency [...] to forestall [...] the destruction of
| evidence
|
| So, essentially nothing is prohibited. "Destruction of evidence"
| can be flushing drugs down the toilet or throwing them out a car
| window. The war on drugs greatly increases how many "crimes" are
| being committed at any given time and what is considered evidence
| of those crimes.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| Is anything ever really prohibited (for US law enforcement)?
| Better yet, what are the real consequences for violation? All I
| ever hear is, _" Okay, fine. We won't do this illegal thing
| anymore - you know, the thing we've been doing for years,
| knowing it's totally illegal. Sorry, not sorry."_ Without
| consequences for violation, there is no prohibition.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4053686-minneapo.
| ..
|
| Expect heads to roll at the Minneapolis PD. Just kidding.
| Nothing will happen. Not even a slap on the wrist.
| AngryData wrote:
| Armed police drones have a deadly downstream problems too, how
| will people and/or criminals oppose them, which they certainly
| will. Some of the most common or best counter options have really
| bad side effects, the first being people shooting rounds into the
| air at them which will come down who knows where, and if it
| becomes a real big problem I foresee small EMP
| bomb/mortar/grenade devices or powerful jammers being used. A
| small bit of explosive on the side of a magnet with some loops of
| copper coil it gets blasted through can deliver a fairly
| significant EMP blast over a small area which can damage all
| sorts of devices, especially anything with an antennae, IE every
| single wireless capable device. And jammers have obvious problems
| and can be made crazy powerful without much difficulty.
|
| Armed police drones becoming anything near common or expected
| will kick off a bit of an arms race with criminals. If criminals
| don't just start copying the exact same thing. Ive seen DIY
| demonstrations of small drones firing pistols accuratly years ago
| now, thankfully they haven't taken off, but that might change if
| the police themselves start using them.
| 13of40 wrote:
| Considering people make a hobby of shooting tiny clay disks out
| of the air with shotguns, and anyone can buy a pump action
| 12-gauge for less than $500, I don't see how a DJI style drone
| can be a threat to someone who's prepared themself. (Unless
| it's already photographed you.)
| michaelmior wrote:
| Sounded great until I got to this exception. It seems like
| there's a lot that could easily fall under this especially when
| the default is often to side with law enforcement.
|
| > the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that,
| under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent
| imminent harm to life or to forestall the imminent escape of a
| suspect or the destruction of evidence.
| screye wrote:
| It's sad that the advent of new technology is never viewed as an
| opportunity to reduce violence.
|
| If the police can put themselves out of harms way using a drone,
| doesn't that help with peaceful de-escalation? A drone opens up
| options like tasers and pepper spray, that would have otherwise
| been impossible for police to deploy at a distance. If facial
| recognition can be done with near 100% accuracy, then what's
| wrong with it being used to identify the location of someone who
| has committed a life sentence worthy crime ?
|
| I agree that drones and facial recognition should never be fully
| automated as a robotic civilian disposal system. But when used
| responsibly, the tools are much better options than what we have
| today : Guns. a GTA car chase can be swiftly stopped using
| drones. Don't need an expensive helicopter and a rampaging maniac
| to kill someone at 150 mph.
|
| We are teaching kids what to do in the case of a school shooter,
| and arming school guards to the teeth. Schools have the hardware
| for facial recognition cameras. A manual "choose target -> hone
| in -> shoot pepper spray" mechanism is less dangerous and
| immediately neutralizes a threat. Yes, the rest of the kids are
| likely to get very painful chillies in their eyes, but you saved
| their lives. (I'll admit this one is stretch)
|
| Yes, it seems dystopian because movies portray it as dystopian.
| But in the modern world, the state has total monopoly over
| violence. We already live in a surveillance state, and the worst
| case outcome is already as bad as it can get (death). Using tech
| to sustain the same state with less resources and better outcome
| (physical pain) is not as bad as it sounds.
| kristianp wrote:
| > the state has total monopoly over violence.
|
| Gun death stats disagree with you on that one.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| Your examples are all rare edge cases, when the day to day is
| police using unconstitutional excessive force, including deadly
| force, with little to no accountability.
|
| The idea that being a police officer is an incredibly dangerous
| job is just false, and in many cases, the violence is caused by
| police escalation. Police already have guns, tasers, pepper
| space, body armor, other police, etc. You are just as likely to
| be murdered on the job as a convenience store clerk as a cop.
| Over 600 convenience store workers are murdered on the job per
| year [1] compared to about 60 per year for police [2], about
| 5-7 of which are during serving warrants. Convenience store
| workers are murdered at about 7 per 100k, while police are
| about 7-8 per 100k [3].
|
| As for giving police access to sweeping facial ID. Whenever the
| new thing that whittles down the 4th amendment is talked about,
| it is almost always with a slam dunk case that is also an
| incredibly serious case. But the average investigation rarely
| ends in a slam dunk. Allowing police to bypass protections of
| privacy and checks and balances to their scope of investigation
| also destroys lives. Semen found inside a person is pretty
| obvious, but what about just DNA found at a crime scene. If
| someone is stabbed in a back alley and police just sweep up DNA
| and run a massive database and tie it to a homeless person
| without an alibi. It might not matter that the homeless person
| slept there a week before, in the absence of a better lead,
| they might push for a conviction. Or just sweeping up all phone
| pings in the area during the crime. Maybe someone was in the
| neighborhood but was completely unrelated. In the absence of a
| better lead, an innocent person could be targeted. Police being
| able to fish for facial recognition hits is no different.
|
| School shooters? Adding police to patrol schools already has
| led to police attacking and arresting more students for smaller
| offenses and ruining more children's lives, all while failing
| to stop any school shootings, and it should surprise no one
| that black and brown kids are the overwhelming victims. "Black
| students were subjected to more than 80% of the incidents of
| police violence accounted for in the survey, which analyzed
| more than 285 incidents over a decade. At least 60% of police
| assaults on students resulted in serious injury to the
| students, including broken bones, concussions and
| hospitalizations. The report also cited 24 cases of sexual
| assault on students and five student deaths as a result of
| police force in schools." Pepper spray drones patrolling
| schools will be used to target black kids, and when they fail
| to stop the next 7 school shootings, people will say they
| really need to be armed with guns to really be able to stop the
| next school shooting.
|
| [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/assaults-and-violent-
| acts-i...
|
| [2] https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-
| release...
|
| [3] https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-2018.htm
|
| [4] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/report-police-schools-
| ou...
| akomtu wrote:
| By far, the biggest danger to people are tyrannies and wars
| they wage on their neighbors and their own people. Communusm,
| nazism, maoism have killed so many that only diseases can rival
| them. Unjust deaths caused by civilian firearms don't even
| register in the long list of real dangers. The media turns it
| upside down, of course.
|
| The many eyed monstrosity that sees everyone and can be seen by
| no one - the AI powered tyranny - will ride the wave of fear
| and anxiety to kill the few freedoms we have.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| "Peaceful de-escalation" is a funny way to describe shooting a
| dude with a drone.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| To me, it is completely obvious that constant drone
| surveillance of the whole population is a dystopian nightmare,
| just like implanting brain chips or constant untargeted cell
| phone surveillance would be. All of these measures need to be
| commensurate. Reducing violence may be a noble goal but it
| needs to be weighed against other values such as individual
| freedom, privacy, and protection from constant government
| interference.
| aauchter wrote:
| Well this isnt going to help Chicago gun deaths.
| paws wrote:
| Slightly OT: I noticed Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, and New
| York City either ended or limited qualified immunity in recent
| years. (In other states similar efforts faltered, apparently
| thanks to police unions and politicians in their pocket [0])
|
| Via the article:
|
| > Fifteen months after the Colorado bill was signed into law,
| there is so far little evidence to support any widespread
| negative effects on police retention or recruitment.
|
| Now that it's been more time I've been curious to measure how
| curtailing QI has affected 1) police misconduct 2) police hiring
| and 3) insurance rates (e.g. indemnity)
| municipalities/townships/states pay.
|
| If anyone has insight on ways to measure, places to find data,
| etc would be appreciated.
|
| Meanwhile for those curious about Chicago police misconduct, TIL
| about [1]
|
| [0] https://archive.ph/evcEG
|
| [1] https://cpdp.co
| hinkley wrote:
| I'm not at "defund police" levels of dissatisfaction but I do
| believe they have fundamentally lost the moral authority to
| self govern. I think internal affairs should be disbanded and
| we go straight to the FBI without passing IA.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| We just need to separate IA from the agency it is
| investigating.
|
| Up here in BC, Canada, the office of the Police Complaint
| Commissioner is responsible for investigating policing
| complaints. They aren't associated with any agency, and have
| broad investigative authorities.
|
| It isn't a perfect system, but it is far better than police
| investigating their own agency, or even police investigating
| other nearby agencies.
|
| I also think that police unions need to go. They should be
| lumped in with other public employee unions, or just accept
| that a job that powerful does not need a traditional union.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| "and we go straight to the FBI"
|
| Because they are so much better, right?
| z3c0 wrote:
| It's a matter of incentive. Sure, the Alphabet Agencies
| aren't intrinsically good, but they have little motive to
| protect the misconduct within local police precincts.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| "but they have little motive to protect the misconduct
| within local police precincts"
|
| Maybe. The way I see it, all of law enforcement has an
| "US vs Them (criminals, etc)" attitude, and are very
| hesitant to throw each other under the bus, or even
| openly criticize eachother unless it is 100% necessary...
| seanw444 wrote:
| I used to be a "back the blue" guy, but that's because
| I'm a pretty boring person who hasn't needed to deal with
| confronting the police before. After watching channels
| like Audit the Audit and LackLuster on YouTube (excellent
| channels btw), I have a newfound respect for the handful
| of cops that actually stick within the limits of their
| authority and remain respectful. I also have a newfound
| disdain for the other 90% of officers. Of course, since
| the channels focus mainly on police misconduct, it's easy
| to get a skewed perspective that almost _all_ police are
| like that, which may also not be true. The fact that so
| many video examples of tyranny exist is frightening
| regardless, however.
|
| One of the new "metas" in policing is getting people to
| open their front door to talk, and then putting their
| foot in the doorway to prevent it from being closed
| without being considered "assault on a peace officer."
| How that shit isn't struck down immediately by SCOTUS
| baffles me. It violates the 4th and 5th amendments
| simultaneously.
|
| And also the incessent use of the "I smell marijuana"
| excuse to be able to freely search peoples' vehicles and
| persons. There's just so many shady tactics the police
| use to intentionally skirt the spirit of the law and our
| rights, while still passing the letter of the law.
| z3c0 wrote:
| > And also the incessent use of the "I smell marijuana"
|
| I have a family member on parole who had this happen on a
| traffic stop the other day. Being on parole, there's no
| right to decline being searched prior to arrest*, so all
| it takes for a cop to derail your day is for them to say
| "I smell marijuana" - no additional hoops.
|
| Not only did he not have marijuana, he was pulled over
| for expired registration, which he was in transit to
| resolve. They saw an expired registration, and decided to
| search him, even though he was able to present his
| completed paperwork that he was en route to drop off.
| They were very obviously fishing for anything to arrest
| someone over.
|
| [*] I should add that even when you can decline the
| search, they search you anyways
| z3c0 wrote:
| I would love to see an equivalent to cpdp.co for every city.
| The notion of publicly humiliating authoritarian thugs
| masquerading as civil servants offers a glimmer of hope for the
| atrocious state of policing in the US.
| wkdneidbwf wrote:
| great! now let's see this same thing at the federal level!
| mulmen wrote:
| Drone means flying drones here. What about land based robots? Can
| they still put a shotgun on one of those to blow away a
| suspicious package? Can they still use a robot to breach a door?
| Can they use facial recognition software on footage recovered
| from a land based drone?
| h2odragon wrote:
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/robot-delivered-lethal-...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...
| hinkley wrote:
| Are we equating suspicious packages with suspicious humans?
|
| You've made a bizarre slippery slope scenario here with much
| bigger ethical implications than the one you're focused on.
| mulmen wrote:
| Why would we equate suspicious packages with humans?
| RajT88 wrote:
| It's a good point. I would hope there's an exemption for bomb
| disposal robots, because functionally there's not that much
| difference between these and (basically) Killbotz:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSkYxW5Ii28
| mulmen wrote:
| Bomb robots seem fine to me in an appropriate context. An
| alternative is a high power rifle at range, although that
| does seem a lot more dangerous.
|
| I'm more concerned about militarized pizza delivery robots.
| If they can't have flying drones will they have rolling ones
| instead? Seems odd to carve this out for only flying drones.
| sangnoir wrote:
| There shouldn't be an exemption on the equipment, but
| prohibition of using _anything_ as a killbot. Dallas police
| used a bomb-disposal robot to remotely _deliver_ a bomb to
| kill a suspect some years back.
|
| https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-
| dalla...
| sokoloff wrote:
| "Hourslong negotiations with the man broke down into an
| exchange of gunfire, Dallas Police Chief David Brown said
| at a news conference Friday morning. At that point, the
| officers deployed a robot armed with an explosive."
|
| That's hardly the stuff of Robocop dystopia. That seems a
| reasonable and proportionate response to a long siege and
| multiple instances of gunfire exchange in which 5 policemen
| had lost their lives engaging the suspect.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > That's hardly the stuff of Robocop dystopia.
|
| Does it have to be dystopian before one disagrees on
| principle? I don't want killerbots normalized - the same
| justifications on this precedent _will_ be applicable to
| a "Robocop dystopia", such as police departments buying
| and operating (or contracting) used MQ-9 Reapers or
| whatever drone Axon is cooking up
| sokoloff wrote:
| What does normalized mean here? Do I accept a future in
| which all people actively engaging police in gunfire over
| multiple hours are subject to killing by a remote-
| controlled machine? I do.
|
| Do I accept roving bands of killer drones flying overhead
| programmed to autonomously kill? I do not.
|
| It seems like we're basically in the first circumstance
| since the use of a robot to terminate the firefight in
| Dallas was literally unprecedented.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > What does normalized mean here?
|
| I don't want any police departments to have carte blanche
| on authorizing drone executions by land, sea or air. The
| Dallas PD didn't see itself as encumbered by any laws -
| so they could hypothetically use a UAV to drop explosives
| _today_. I would like legislation to prevent this from
| repeating - using a killerbot shouldn 't be a field-
| decision, IMO.
|
| We need clear rules of engagement. At the moment, police
| forces are adopting military equipment, but not
| discipline.
| mulmen wrote:
| It seems pretty easy to have an exception that allows bomb
| disposal without allowing bomb delivery.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Weapons yeah, facial recognition is okay in my books.
|
| But hear me out, that facial recognition would be publicly
| available data and be opensource.
|
| I believe facial recognition on drones or weapons by any person
| not law enforcement should be illegal. Just like CCTV footage and
| stuff it needs to be public or private data for 30 days and then
| publicly available.
|
| CCTVs deter crime it is a proven fact.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| [flagged]
| starlevel003 wrote:
| > This "defund de police" bs has been one of the most damaging
| rhetoric's in American cities. People are being victimized left
| and right, robberies, rapes, gang violence, etc because some
| people know there are little to no consequences.
|
| Police budgets haven't actually been defunded, and yet this
| still happens.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Please understand that "defund the police" is way more than
| just cutting money to buy things, but also demanding huge
| amounts for asinine redtape that is mostly impractical in the
| real World. Also local directives like: "Not permitting a
| police officer to be at a school or even at the parking lot"
| ( yes.. really )
|
| To the point most police departments are running at half-
| capacity and 911 calls remain open for HOURS!
|
| It's all fine, until you are the one calling 911 and feel
| abandoned, then who are you going to blame? The police of
| course..
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Yeah, the people saying "defund the police" have generally
| had near-zero success in affecting policy, with policy makers
| at all levels rejecting their advocacy and increasing police
| budgets, often at the expense of other local services and
| functions.
|
| If bad things are happening in crime, and it is an indictment
| of current policy, it is more defensibly an indictment of the
| reaction against "defund the police" than of "defund the
| police".
| mulmen wrote:
| Weird take. Policing is hard, sure. I don't think flying guns
| with facial recognition are the solution we need.
|
| If this is what "defund the police" means then sign me up.
| Defund all their armed face scanning drones.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| I'm not a fan either, but we demand more and more from the
| police, yet there is a powerful force ( mostly political ) to
| curb the resources the police can use.
|
| I get both sides, but this road will have bad results. (
| making Illinois into a police state is not a solution either
| )
| mulmen wrote:
| Defund the police is about demanding less from the police.
| Policing is hard and necessary but armed drones aren't a
| solution.
| [deleted]
| hospitalJail wrote:
| What a world we live in. Major companies are doing facial
| recognition to improve security and likely lower insurance costs,
| but the police can't.
|
| The cat is out of the bag on this stuff.
|
| If teenagers can use this technology on Facebook, do we really
| need to add additional hoops to pretend we have privacy? I'd much
| rather not put on the show and be aware we are being watched.
| midnitewarrior wrote:
| This is terrifying that we need this kind of regulation.
| kylevedder wrote:
| Using the existence of regulation as proof that the regulation
| is needed is circular reasoning.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| Good.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| So? When they killed the guy on Dallas, they just jury-rigged up
| some C4 onto a bomb-defusing robot (haha!) and rolled it into the
| parking garage.
|
| I'm sure Illinois cops will be able to improvise when they want
| to pull these stunts.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I don't understand the issue with facial recognition _if_ it is
| only used as a lead, and isn 't considered evidence in and of
| itself, and a person's rights are respected even if they are
| flagged by the facial recognition software. If the issue is
| disparate success rates between races or other demographics, then
| let's just fuzz the incoming data until it's all equal. Facial
| recognition still sounds like an incredibly useful tool.
|
| Banning facial recognition sounds to me like the legislature
| knows that the police force abuses people and will abuse people
| even more with facial recognition. Instead of banning tools that
| can increase the scope for abuse, why not try rooting out the
| people and culture perpetrating abuse in the first place?
| 99_00 wrote:
| It makes much more sense to ban facial recognition instead of
| addressing corruption and incompetence in a state like
| Illinois.
|
| 1.) Progressive voters get good feelings as they think they are
| helping 'minorities' and advancing social justice.
|
| 2.) Politicians please a large segment of voters.
|
| 3.) People who benefit from corruption are not threatened as
| the status quo is maintained.
|
| 4.) Politicians's in power is not threatened by the system as
| the status quo is maintained.
|
| The corrupt system only negatively impacts people who can't
| afford a good private lawyer.
| mulmen wrote:
| If I am flagged by facial recognition software my rights have
| already been violated.
|
| This is a bad idea even before we consider that LEO is composed
| of fallible human beings with an established history of abusing
| the information systems they already possess.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| What right of yours was violated if you were flagged by
| facial recognition?
| mulmen wrote:
| The 4th amendment.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Rights afforded by Illinois law, I suppose.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| in the United States, there is a history of limitation of
| occupying armies, and to some extent police. It comes from
| a time when you, citizen, had to stop what you are doing
| and become under questioning or controlled without any
| checks and balances. A group of men in uniform could stop
| and hold any number of people for "suspicion" .. that is
| illegal here. So in reverse, if you are going to be
| stopped, questioned, and your actions controlled, there
| must be sufficient reason, and that authority has
| limitations. Cars have changed that calculus a lot, laws
| are being updated. Murky legal waters for "searching"
| crowds.. one factor is that information systems hold data
| for days and years, millions of records can be searched
| instantly on a regular basis. so the practical reach of
| technology has changed. IANAL
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| If mass surveillance is limited by the ability for humans
| to look at camera feeds, that provides a check on it.
| localplume wrote:
| agree. the technology is exceptionally useful and banning it
| doesn't stop already corrupt LEO from fudging evidence. they
| should be removed entirely. individually, many forms of
| evidence in forensic science are complete BS but as part of a
| whole they add value. its the same with facial recognition.
| this is just a kneejerk reaction that sounds good on headlines
| and for politics but doesn't actually help anyone.
| interestica wrote:
| Police: "It's not a drone."
| activiation wrote:
| [flagged]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-16 23:01 UTC)